Property Market 2019

voluntary

terrydel wrote: »

In a society where many people are struggling to get a home of any description, why should any consideration at all be given to helping people get their second home?

But this is not about a second home. It's about people who, at some stage in the past, used to own a home, maybe just for a short while. It's a large basket of various cases.

I know somebody who was affected as he used to own a 10k worth of a property in home country in Romania before moving to Ireland. He's not an FTB any more.

Brussels Sprout

lleti wrote: »

Someone on 40k can get 140k.

Some deposit you would need if you wanted a 2 bed apartment that wasn't a ****hole. If I wanted an apartment for 200k (which in fairness does not get much) I'd need a deposit of 60k.

Yes this is a dilemma and the root of it is that in this country we don't really have property geared toward single people.

Possibly because of our religious conservative past housing has always been geared toward families. We never had a tradition of building high quality, high density accommodation in city centers.

There was a splurge of apartment building during the Celtic tiger era but on average the build quality was not good (small windows, tiny balconies, lack of storage space, drab interiors) and these were seen as "starter homes" before people got serious and bought a semi-detached in the suburbs.

In Sweden there is a large minority (if not even a majority at this stage) of people under 40 who are single and live on their own. As a result housing there reflects this with plentiful single-bedroom apartments that were designed as permanent homes and not simply places that people stay for a few years while they wait to own a "real" home.

I think planners and politicians are finally starting to cop on to this but it will take a long time before we see anything concrete happening here.

Mickiemcfist

I think the only way forward from a single occupancy point of view is a shared ownership model like some councils & companies do in London & elsewhere. You buy 50% of your house/apartment & you rent the other 50% off the other owner at a predetermined rate. You can incrementally buy portions of it as you go along & your equity increases.

Islander13

voluntary wrote: »

But this is not about a second home. It's about people who, at some stage in the past, used to own a home, maybe just for a short while. It's a large basket of various cases.

I know somebody who was affected as he used to own a 10k worth of a property in home country in Romania before moving to Ireland. He's not an FTB any more.

I dont get why people who owned property abroad would ever declare that they did (unless its a recent sale to demonstrate equity build). An Irish bank would never know

JohnnyChimpo

Islander13 wrote: »

I dont get why people who owned property abroad would ever declare that they did (unless its a recent sale to demonstrate equity build). An Irish bank would never know

Entering into contracts fraud to the tune of maybe half a million on the basis of "ah sure they'll never know". Solid advice

Islander13

JohnnyChimpo wrote: »

Entering into contracts fraud to the tune of maybe half a million on the basis of "ah sure they'll never know". Solid advice

Contracts Fraud! I've heard it all now. The Bank would never be able to do anything even if they found out, and they wouldnt. If you think otherwise explain the legal mechanism they would use to enforce on this contracts fraud you speak of.

If some person is really out there unwilling to apply for a FTB mortgage to buy a home because they are afraid of a bank finding out they bought a 10k apartment in Romania..the mind boggles

Mike3549

Yeah but if that 10k property wasnt bought with a mortgage, youre still classed as a first time buyer in the eyes of central bank. Not revenue though.

Roberto_gas

Islander13 wrote:

I dont get why people who owned property abroad would ever declare that they did (unless its a recent sale to demonstrate equity build). An Irish bank would never know

This..know atleast dozen who got HTB eventhough they had houses abroad.

kippy

Islander13 wrote: »

Contracts Fraud! I've heard it all now. The Bank would never be able to do anything even if they found out, and they wouldnt. If you think otherwise explain the legal mechanism they would use to enforce on this contracts fraud you speak of.

If some person is really out there unwilling to apply for a FTB mortgage to buy a home because they are afraid of a bank finding out they bought a 10k apartment in Romania..the mind boggles

Revenue would be a bigger worry TBF.

kippy

Roberto_gas wrote: »

This..know atleast dozen who got HTB eventhough they had houses abroad.

And of course this type of thing never catches up with people.....

voluntary

The point was - how stupid and wrong the Central Bank rules are. Making rules too broad causes injustice and encourage people to act illegally (as encouraged in the above posts).

Financial fraud is a criminal offence. Imagine this person would also apply for some FTB grants. You're now not only against loan limits but a fraud against the state's purse.

voluntary

Roberto_gas wrote: »

This..know atleast dozen who got HTB eventhough they had houses abroad.

Well, as far as going around the central bank rules may not push you to prison, applying for grants based on fraud will certainly will. Do these dozen even sleep at night?

voluntary

BTW, these dozen should be reported and made repay the taxpayer money. We pay too much money in taxes to simply allow this to happen.

beauf

voluntary wrote: »

The point was - how stupid and wrong the Central Bank rules are. Making rules too broad causes injustice and encourage people to act illegally (as encouraged in the above posts). ...

People acting illegally to gamble on property is their own issue.

beauf

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

Yes this is a dilemma and the root of it is that in this country we don't really have property geared toward single people.

Possibly because of our religious conservative past housing has always been geared toward families. We never had a tradition of building high quality, high density accommodation in city centers. ....

This has got nothing to do with religion.
What is a property for single people? How do you define that.

What you mean there is nothing affordable for single people.
That has got nothing to do with religion of the design of buildings.
Its simply not affordable. Its not affordable for families either, indeed anyone.

I'm not saying planning and housing policy isn't abysmal, it is.

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-45559456
https://www.citymetric.com/forget-community-london-s-co-living-spaces-are-about-living-selfishly-4520

In the past peoples solution to this was to emigrate, or buy property with other people, siblings, or friends. Not ideal but thats what happened.

JJJackal

beauf wrote: »

People acting illegally to gamble on property is their own issue.

That is not true. If there illegal activity costs us the taxpayer money it is most certainly OUR issue

Islander13

voluntary wrote: »

BTW, these dozen should be reported and made repay the taxpayer money. We pay too much money in taxes to simply allow this to happen.

Explain what taxes are being missed out on that the revenue should pursue, we're talking about benefitting from the extra 10% LTV as a first time buyer. No tax impact whatsoever

voluntary

Islander13 wrote: »

Explain what taxes are being missed out on that the revenue should pursue, we're talking about benefitting from the extra 10% LTV as a first time buyer. No tax impact whatsoever

HTB scheme is an income tax refund scheme for FTBs only.
Depending on a house price, this goes up to 20k euros tax refund per head. The 'Roberto' claims he knows 'a dozen' of HTB fraudsters, so a potential 240.000 euros fraud against a taxpayer (so against you and me)


.

voluntary

beauf wrote: »

What is a property for single people? How do you define that.

That's simple. Studios and 1-bedroom apartments in multifamily buildings.
The ratio of these is very low in any international comparisons.

beauf

We were talking about the rules forcing people to act illegally. Not that its subject we have no interest in.

JJJackal wrote: »

That is not true. If there illegal activity costs us the taxpayer money it is most certainly OUR issue

So I assume this implies you are talking responsibility for people acting illegally.

mel123

Islander13 wrote: »

I dont get why people who owned property abroad would ever declare that they did (unless its a recent sale to demonstrate equity build). An Irish bank would never know

I went to a mortgage advisor last year who advised me to tell the bank i was a first time buyer. Im not :-) He said they would never know/look it up - i sold 10 years ago and have been abroad and then renting ever since. I was too much of a chicken sh*t to ever find out!

voluntary

beauf wrote: »

People acting illegally to gamble on property is their own issue.

Well, how's the CB deposit rule protecting anybody in the below example:

Person A) Never owned a house, has 10% deposit, can buy a house
Person Used to have a house/mortgage, sold it 10 years ago, rented since then. Now has 10% deposit, cannot buy a house.

What's the benefit of requiring Person B have 20% deposit as opposed to Person A only 10%?

beauf

I already answered this.

beauf wrote: »

It should be based on affordability and means. Not the number of times, you've been involved in property.

All these tweaks to rules distort the market so that its no longer a level playing field.

That doesn't mean its someone else responsibility if I choose to act illegally.

beauf

voluntary wrote: »

That's simple. Studios and 1-bedroom apartments in multifamily buildings.
The ratio of these is very low in any international comparisons.

Do you have link to these comparisons. I assume there are a range of other issues also acting on this.

Brussels Sprout

beauf wrote: »

This has got nothing to do with religion.
What is a property for single people? How do you define that.

What you mean there is nothing affordable for single people.
That has got nothing to do with religion of the design of buildings.

In the past (say the 1940's -> 1970's) single people either lived at home, with extended family or else moved into digs (if they, for example, had to move from the countryside to the city). The idea of a woman living on her own, in particular, would have been particularly scandalous. These were the attitudes in the country when a lot of the current housing stock was being built.

What would be suitable accommodation for a single person? A purpose built one-bedroom apartment with a separate living and kitchen area. I've stayed in a few of these on the continent using Air Bnb and they were quite pleasant. Unfortunately, a lot of the apartments here are quite claustrophobic with low ceilings, small windows and minuscule balcony areas. A lot of these were churned out 15 years ago when the standards were more lax and the developers were marketing them as the first rung on the property ladder.

JJJackal

beauf wrote: »

We were talking about the rules forcing people to act illegally. Not that its subject we have no interest in.



So I assume this implies you are talking responsibility for people acting illegally.

I would consider reporting someone to revenue if they were defrauding the country to the tune of 20,000. Not sure if I would have the time energy or will to go through with it

I think alot of citizens would though.

voluntary

Too many still consider money re-distributed by the state as a 'government money', 'banks will pay money' or 'corporations will pay money'.

Cyrus

voluntary wrote: »

Too many still consider money re-distributed by the state as a 'government money', 'banks will pay money' or 'corporations will pay money'.

whats your preferred description

Wanderer78

voluntary wrote:

Too many still consider money re-distributed by the state as a 'government money', 'banks will pay money' or 'corporations will pay money'.

And it's amazing the amount of people that still believe governments and their related financial institutions, I.e. central banks, still create the majority of our money supply

beauf

JJJackal wrote: »

I would consider reporting someone to revenue if they were defrauding the country to the tune of 20,000. Not sure if I would have the time energy or will to go through with it

I think alot of citizens would though.

Ok great. Not sure what that has to do with people having no choice except to do fraud.